Proposed repeal of Pittman Robertson Act - Thoughts?

[Clovis]

Prior to the income tax the government was funded through tariffs from foreign trade. Considering the trade imbalance that’s a non-starter today.

Not to nitpick but the states collected tariffs on all goods for sale not made within the state. ( I'm not sure if the state was able to keep a percentage of the tariff before they sent it to D.C.). Raw materials like cotton were not tariffed but once it was turned into cloth or clothing it was subject to a tariff in a state other than the one where it was processed or manufactured.

 

[lazarus]

My question is, how did they pay for them before?

Or, if they did repeal income taxes, could put a national sales tax on all goods and services.

The things Fabs mentioned? Or public lands?

The Fabs stuff, taxation. Back several thousand years of history in all countries with anything passing as a function government.

The PR stuff mostly wasn’t paid for before. We’d have a hell of a lot less public land for enjoyment without those funds.

 

[lazarus]

Not to nitpick but the states collected tariffs on all goods for sale not made within the state. ( I'm not sure if the state was able to keep a percentage of the tariff before they sent it to D.C.). Raw materials like cotton were not tariffed but once it was turned into cloth or clothing it was subject to a tariff in a state other than the one where it was processed or manufactured.

There were also other taxes. Just not income tax, except during the civil war.

Property was for SURE taxes since the start of the US.

By 1796, state and local governments in fourteen of the fifteen states taxed land, but only four taxed inventory (stock in trade). Delaware did not tax property, but rather the income from it.

 

[Boondock Saint]

 

[slsc98]

It wasn't to long ago, the feds wanting to tax all of our 401 and IRAs.

The feds want to gobble up as much tax money they can get their hands on to line their pockets with.

MD politicians in particular are simply and positively full-on ADDICTED to other people’s money … I often tell others, “MD politicians lay awake at night, figuring out new ways to spend other people’s hard-earned money!”

 

[KIBarrister]

Whenever they pass a law, they take some of your freedom. I guess that would be considered theft too.

However, we digress. My response was to KIBarrister. He stated that the government is the least efficient way to accomplish anything. If there are no taxes, how would we fund our national defense? Assuming arguendo that we can obtain enough charitable contributions for national defense, should we abolish the "inefficient" Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, Customs, etc. and hire independent contractors to take care of those areas? Would independent contractors be more efficient than the government at providing for our national defense?

Yes. I’m sick and bloody tired of excuses for economic slavery in the face of entitlements. Surely the Union fielded an army during the War Between the States? And of course the Revolutionary War? Remind me how those turned out, since they were both well before direct federal taxation. If we were going to be talking about funding ONLY that which is expressly noted in COTUS we could have a discussion about me bending, but of course - “the roads!”

When you can show me where roads are stated in the COTUSwe can talk about roads - but all I see is Uncle Sugar using the purse strings to set local policy.

Fortunately, FPC knows what’s up (see attached).

 

[OneGunTex]

Wasn't going to jump in on this, but wanted to point out that this bill is set to get rid of ALL Pitman-Robertson funding, not JUST the firearms part. According to Ryan Callaghan it targets Dingel-Johnson (fishing gear) too. That's ridiculous.

I see legitimate room for debate in whether or how what parts of firearms-related stuff can rightly be faxed under P-R. Likewise, expanding the list of non-firearms outdoors-related gear. But getting rid of P-R wholesale is not that.

Hunting licenses make no sense. You need to pay for a license to hunt wild game on your own property? All taxation is theft.

^Now, to address this specifically. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. We already know what happens when you don't have hunting licenses - people overhunt nearly every game species in America to near extinction. We have a system that works here, administered by the individual states. Don't f*** it up

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

 

[KIBarrister]

Wasn't going to jump in on this, but wanted to point out that this bill is set to get rid of ALL Pitman-Robertson funding, not JUST the firearms part. According to Ryan Callaghan it targets Dingel-Johnson (fishing gear) too. That's ridiculous.

I see legitimate room for debate in whether or how what parts of firearms-related stuff can rightly be faxed under P-R. Likewise, expanding the list of non-firearms outdoors-related gear. But getting rid of P-R wholesale is not that.

It also gets rid of the NFA $200. People care so much, donate to a charity that will do a far more efficient job then .gov anyway: better results for less money.

^Now, to address this specifically. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. We already know what happens when you don't have hunting licenses - people overhunt nearly every game species in America to near extinction. We have a system that works here, administered by the individual states. Don't f*** it up

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

You understand the states could impose bag limits without charging a fee to engage in an activity that predates the world’s oldest profession?

 

[lazarus]

Yes. I’m sick and bloody tired of excuses for economic slavery in the face of entitlements. Surely the Union fielded an army during the War Between the States? And of course the Revolutionary War? Remind me how those turned out, since they were both well before direct federal taxation. If we were going to be talking about funding ONLY that which is expressly noted in COTUS we could have a discussion about me bending, but of course - “the roads!”

When you can show me where roads are stated in the COTUSwe can talk about roads - but all I see is Uncle Sugar using the purse strings to set local policy.

Fortunately, FPC knows what’s up (see attached).

Actually there was an income tax during the civil war precisely because it was so expensive.

And in the revolutionary war the French paid for a lot of it and Washington nearly had a rebellion due not just to conditions at Valley Forge over the winter, but also because the Continental Congress didn’t have any money to pay the Continental army soldiers despite promises (IIRC that was the French coming through for us on the pay).

1812 was largely state militia that was federalized and we turned things around in part from increasing the federal army (in part if I remember correctly by significantly raising duties and tariffs).

As for where it says anything about roads in COTUS, Article 8, Section 1 “To establish Post Offices and post Roads”. Considering the post gets delivered to almost all homes, that sort of covers almost all roads in the country (certainly any place mail gets delivered).

 

[babalou]

I agree. I am in support of the PR tax. I was just pointing out that the same logic that PR tax is an constitutional tax on a RIGHT, then you can go back and argue that any kind of tax or fee on ANY part of the firearms industry is also unconstitutional.

I disagree and I also think few to no courts including SCOTUS would likely find such either.

Taxes have been part of history, text and tradition on top of that...

A stronger argument would be that a tax or fee on actually keeping or bearing arms is a lot more likely to be unconstitutional versus a tax on the sale of arms or a tax on the manufacturer of the arms. The former would be more akin to taxing/fees for voter registration. The later would be more like taxes or fees on voting machine manufacturers or the suppliers of printed ballots.

problem is that places out west want to put like a thousand dollar tax on ARs Exaggerating of course.

 

[lazarus]

It also gets rid of the NFA $200. People care so much, donate to a charity that will do a far more efficient job then .gov anyway: better results for less money.

You understand the states could impose bag limits without charging a fee to engage in an activity that predates the world’s oldest profession?

Then how does enforcement get paid for or maintenance or even just existing public lands? You don’t want any taxes. But also don’t want licenses/license fees. Ignore acquire more public lands. Or is the point public lands shouldn’t be? If there should be public lands, it costs something to maintain them (fire fighting, maintain any roads/docks/ranger stations/parking areas). Something to monitor them (law enforcement/game wardens/rangers).

 

[babalou]

Then how does enforcement get paid for or maintenance or even just existing public lands? You don’t want any taxes. But also don’t want licenses/license fees. Ignore acquire more public lands. Or is the point public lands shouldn’t be? If there should be public lands, it costs something to maintain them (fire fighting, maintain any roads/docks/ranger stations/parking areas). Something to monitor them (law enforcement/game wardens/rangers).

so we pay twice for public lands? once through our taxes and then through our taxes on firearms and accessories?

 

[teratos]

I

Then how does enforcement get paid for or maintenance or even just existing public lands? You don’t want any taxes. But also don’t want licenses/license fees. Ignore acquire more public lands. Or is the point public lands shouldn’t be? If there should be public lands, it costs something to maintain them (fire fighting, maintain any roads/docks/ranger stations/parking areas). Something to monitor them (law enforcement/game wardens/rangers).

Trump can make China pay for it all.

 

[lazarus]

I

Trump can make China pay for it all.

Only after he makes Mexico pay for the wall.

 

[lazarus]

so we pay twice for public lands? once through our taxes and then through our taxes on firearms and accessories?

It depends on which lands. And not really twice. More like PR taxes allow them to buy/maintain more public lands and shooting ranges.

Think of it more like either doing more because of two sources of payment for it all. Or charge a lot more in general revenue taxes to pay for it all, or don’t use any general revenues to pay for it and drastically increase PR taxes.

If they are choosing to do it, it has to have some funding source.

 

[babalou]

It depends on which lands. And not really twice. More like PR taxes allow them to buy/maintain more public lands and shooting ranges.

Think of it more like either doing more because of two sources of payment for it all. Or charge a lot more in general revenue taxes to pay for it all, or don’t use any general revenues to pay for it and drastically increase PR taxes.

If they are choosing to do it, it has to have some funding source.

 

[RoadDawg]

so we pay twice for public lands? once through our taxes and then through our taxes on firearms and accessories?

Income taxes
Fuel taxes
Firearms taxes
Tolls
Excise taxes on vehicle parts….

And… higher prices for shipped goods, so the shippers can stay in business and bring our goods to market. They pass the cost of their taxes on to the consumer.

 

[OneGunTex]

You understand the states could impose bag limits without charging a fee to engage in an activity that predates the world’s oldest profession?

No, you miss the point. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which has successfully gotten us to a point of paradoxically increasing wildlife during 150 years of decreasingly wild spaces, at its core defines wildlife as a public good, administered by the states as elected representatives of the public (vs the land owner, as in African preserves, or the king, as in old Europe). Thus, the states have every right to charge a license fee - the proceeds of which go back into responsible management and growth of the resource on behalf of the public. Essentially, if you were to engage in poaching because "my land my deer" you would in a way be stealing from the public, hence why states like Montana place a value on all poached animals as restitution to the public.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

 

[KIBarrister]

Actually there was an income tax during the civil war precisely because it was so expensive.

And in the revolutionary war the French paid for a lot of it and Washington nearly had a rebellion due not just to conditions at Valley Forge over the winter, but also because the Continental Congress didn’t have any money to pay the Continental army soldiers despite promises (IIRC that was the French coming through for us on the pay).

1812 was largely state militia that was federalized and we turned things around in part from increasing the federal army (in part if I remember correctly by significantly raising duties and tariffs).

As for where it says anything about roads in COTUS, Article 8, Section 1 “To establish Post Offices and post Roads”. Considering the post gets delivered to almost all homes, that sort of covers almost all roads in the country (certainly any place mail gets delivered).

"post roads" - that phrase, I do not think it means what you think it means. The point remains, we have managed before without direct federal taxation. I would abolish about 90% of federal spending and with it 98% of the federal government - I'd say that would greatly reduce the "need" from Uncle Sugar.

Then how does enforcement get paid for or maintenance or even just existing public lands? You don’t want any taxes. But also don’t want licenses/license fees. Ignore acquire more public lands. Or is the point public lands shouldn’t be? If there should be public lands, it costs something to maintain them (fire fighting, maintain any roads/docks/ranger stations/parking areas). Something to monitor them (law enforcement/game wardens/rangers).

fees and licenses for use of publicly funded facilities are one thing - if they are limited to maintenance and don't turn into pork (fat chance) - but not when we are talking about something related to a core fundamental right, such as guns & ammo.

Income taxes
Fuel taxes
Firearms taxes
Tolls
Excise taxes on vehicle parts….

And… higher prices for shipped goods, so the shippers can stay in business and bring our goods to market. They pass the cost of their taxes on to the consumer.

yep. Taxes on this, fees on that - 95% of it never goes where it is supposed to and instead lines the pockets of pols and bureaucrats. China/Ukraine/Moscow didn't pay Hunter millions of dollars, the taxpayers of these United States paid that money to Hunter, it was just laundered by the aforementioned foreign entities.

No, you miss the point. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which has successfully gotten us to a point of paradoxically increasing wildlife during 150 years of decreasingly wild spaces, at its core defines wildlife as a public good, administered by the states as elected representatives of the public (vs the land owner, as in African preserves, or the king, as in old Europe). Thus, the states have every right to charge a license fee - the proceeds of which go back into responsible management and growth of the resource on behalf of the public. Essentially, if you were to engage in poaching because "my land my deer" you would in a way be stealing from the public, hence why states like Montana place a value on all poached animals as restitution to the public.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

For starters, I'll disagree with the premise of a "right" to charge. But, since we are talking about Uncle Sugar, I'd say we don't need to get there - your premise, which I will quibble with far less than the federal government taxing the implements of a core fundamental right, is "the states." From a constitutional/jurisprudential perspective, I will acknowledge the states charging such a cost is permissible. (Though, again, I don't trust any government - big or small - not to waste money; nor do I trust them not to turn enforcement into a sort of tax, such as permit requirements in some jurisdictions for preposterous items on personal property).

Uncle Sugar has turned into an unwieldy behemoth, whose size and lack of finesse is only outpaced by it's gross inefficiency. Anything, and I do mean anything, that internally reduces the size, scope, and/or power of the federal government is a good thing.

 

[gtodave]

It's lost five co-sponsors after backlash from hunters and conservation groups

GOP Gun Bill Loses Support Amid Outrage From Hunting, Conservation Groups